Forbes exposes the great pizza lie.

[Throckmorton]

Have premiums been lowered over the past couple of years?

Uhh you know the Obamacare mandate hasn't taken effect yet right? How could premiums be lowered?

I freaking love Republicans. "We demand that Obamacare not take effect for 2 years". Then a year and a half later "Obamacare doesn't work!"

 

[Throckmorton]

I was reading a report that there are many jobs available. We have a shortage (or upcoming shortage) of plumbers, electricians and construction workers.

We as a nation went from respecting physical hard jobs to demonizing them. today its EVERYONE has to go to college. Not every person is college martial. not that they aren't bright but some aren't the type to sit in a office and push papers.

but then again that goes back to it seems less are willing to do such physical jobs

edit: also the nation needs to crack down on shipping jobs over seas. Lets bring back manufacturing items back to the US.

The fact is a lot of jobs are going to be in the service industry. You can't just dismiss those workers as not deserving a living wage and health insurance, simply because they *may" someday get a professional or trade job. That's asinine.

 

[sactoking]

Uhh you know the Obamacare mandate hasn't taken effect yet right? How could premiums be lowered?

This is correct. Without the market reforms taking effect, they can't take effect.

On the flip side, these market reforms that were supposed to make insurance "affordable" appear to do the exact opposite. I haven't seen a single study that indicates average premiums will go down as a result of the reforms. I have seen indications that premiums will go down for two demographics, the aged and the poor, but those decreases are due to artificial machinations and not true market reform.

The intent of the reforms was to include a bunch of new, young, healthy folks into the market, which would drive average premiums down. Unfortunately, they also include a bunch of old and/or unhealthy folks with exorbitant medical costs that offset (and then some) and savings from the expanded pool.

 

[buckshot24]

Of course there are still going to be people without insurance. No one has ever claimed that the ACA would reduce the percentage of the uninsured to 0. But the consensus estimate is that 30+ million people who currently don't have health insurance will get covered under ACA.

I didn't claim that anybody claimed it either.

So the net effect of the ACA is that 30+ million more Americans will be covered by insurance, millions more will pay a tax penalty for not getting insurance, and some unknown number of people will find a way to remain uninsured without paying the penalty - people who currently are not insured and who currently pay no penalty (in other words, some unknown number of people will find a way to continue as they currently are). And you think this overall result is horrible?

There will be people evading the law or more accurately breaking it that have no law to break at this point. There is a lot of incentive to break this particular law as well. Since this is tied in with the IRS this will cause people to simply not file tax returns who otherwise would have.

Assuming that the 30+ million number of uninsured going to insured is accurate. How many of these people would have otherwise went into an emergency room and not paid their bills? Maybe 500,000 a year? These 30 million people are most likely low risk for huge medical bills yet we need Obamacare with it's added taxes on medical goods (making health care more expensive) and fines and "taxes" on those who opt out of getting health "insurance".

I'm sorry but just because you agree with the outcome congress now has another power that it didn't have before which could be used for something you don't agree with.

So yes I think creating criminals just to get insurance to people where the vast majority of these people don't need it is a bad outcome.

The reason we need insurance to help us pay for health care is because of the insurance industry itself. When somebody else is paying the bill it is always going to (on average) create higher prices. We need less insurance, not more.

 

[buckshot24]

The fact is a lot of jobs are going to be in the service industry. You can't just dismiss those workers as not deserving a living wage and health insurance, simply because they *may" someday get a professional or trade job. That's asinine.

Flipping fucking burgers should not pay a "living wage". We could make minimum wage $100 an hour and pretty soon that wouldn't be enough to live on. High school kids should not get paid a "living wage" (unless they produce enough to make that much money). Raising minimum wage just causes higher unemployment.

 

[fskimospy]

I love how this is such a huge argument over paying around $0.11 more (or about 1%) per shitty pizza in order to help people escape a life of economic insecurity, poor health, and possibly death. If I am ever so unfortunate as to be forced to eat Papa John's pizza again I will be sure to pay my extra 11 cents with a smile on my face.

That smile will likely disappear when the pizza actually goes in my mouth though. Gross.

 

[Juror No. 8]

I notice you made no attempt whatsoever to answer his question. Is it maybe because you're pretty transparently full of shit, that any adult with at least a room temperature IQ understands that there are bills that must be paid in order to enjoy all the amazing benefits of a first-world county? Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and become "free" in a low-tax utopia ... like Guatemala? No? Enjoying your lavish life style too much, you know like clean water, safe food, Internet access, etc.? Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to call others "idiot" and "schmuck".

Why would I answer an irrelevant, mindless question, idiot?

 

[sactoking]

I love how this is such a huge argument over paying around $0.11 more (or about 1%) per shitty pizza in order to help people escape a life of economic insecurity, poor health, and possibly death. If I am ever so unfortunate as to be forced to eat Papa John's pizza again I will be sure to pay my extra 11 cents with a smile on my face.

That smile will likely disappear when the pizza actually goes in my mouth though. Gross.

This is one of those things where, yes, it does appear that the per pizza cost is inconsequential. But you know, there's a legitimate case to be made that if the market would bear the pizza costing 11 cents more then the company would have already extracted that as profit.

If you believe in equilibrium modeling then 11 cents per pizza will have a marked impact on sales which will in turn impact employment.

 

[Bowfinger]

Why would I answer an irrelevant, mindless question, idiot?

Why would I answer an irrelevant, mindless idiot?

 

[OutHouse]

You can't just dismiss those workers

wanna bet?

 

[fskimospy]

This is one of those things where, yes, it does appear that the per pizza cost is inconsequential. But you know, there's a legitimate case to be made that if the market would bear the pizza costing 11 cents more then the company would have already extracted that as profit.

If you believe in equilibrium modeling then 11 cents per pizza will have a marked impact on sales which will in turn impact employment.

A 1% fluctuation in the price of a Papa John's pizza is well within the costs that the average franchise has to worry about in terms of different building rent, price of ingredients, local labor markets, financing costs, and differing utility costs.

Papa John's is a franchise business, I doubt they have modeled these markets that perfectly. Call me the first guy to say that an $0.11 increase will have a negligible effect.

 

[buckshot24]

Why would I answer an irrelevant, mindless idiot?

It was the great Obiwan Kenobi that said. "Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who answers his foolish posts?" or something...

 

[sactoking]

A 1% fluctuation in the price of a Papa John's pizza is well within the costs that the average franchise has to worry about in terms of different building rent, price of ingredients, local labor markets, financing costs, and differing utility costs.

Papa John's is a franchise business, I doubt they have modeled these markets that perfectly. Call me the first guy to say that an $0.11 increase will have a negligible effect.

Building rent, labor markets, and financing costs are all accounted for in the pre-franchise viability report. Ingredients, utilities and whatnot are iften directly reflected in product costs.

We don't know what type of franchise pricing model they use so, as I've said in all of the other threads on the topic, speculation about the degree of ease or difficulty in absorbing cost increases in pointless.

 

[fskimospy]

Building rent, labor markets, and financing costs are all accounted for in the pre-franchise viability report. Ingredients, utilities and whatnot are iften directly reflected in product costs.

We don't know what type of franchise pricing model they use so, as I've said in all of the other threads on the topic, speculation about the degree of ease or difficulty in absorbing cost increases in pointless.

Right, and I'm willing to bet that over the lifetime of a franchise since that report those factors will in many cases create much more than a 1% fluctuation in costs outside of what is predicted.

I don't buy Papa John's pizza because it tastes bad. If it tasted good, an $0.11 difference per pizza would not stop me. You're right that we cannot be certain how it will turn out, but put me pretty hilariously heavily on the side of nobody noticing.

 

[chucky2]

Was it even answered whether this is PJ Corp. costs that will increase the pizza price .11c, or is this also including what each franchise owners workers (and themselves?) would increase the cost by? Those are two very very different things...

Chuck

 

[sactoking]

Was it even answered whether this is PJ Corp. costs that will increase the pizza price .11c, or is this also including what each franchise owners workers (and themselves?) would increase the cost by? Those are two very very different things...

Chuck

That's the problem. IIRC, the corporation said that the franchisees would have to raise prices 14 cents (or whatever) to cover the health insurance costs and then people started looking at the corporate financial statements and making erroneous extrapolations about the "actual" cost.

 

[chucky2]

That's what I still don't understand myself. Is it 11c for just the Corp cost, and then add on another $x.yz for what the franchise workers will raise the costs by for their insurance, or, is it 11c for Everyone (Corp. + franchise)? Sorta hard to call BS on PJ until this is known.

 

[JulesMaximus]

pappa johns pizzas are fucking horrible. I will not give a cent of my money to this company because they suck. Raise your prices for all I care, I still won't order your shitty fucking pizza.

 

[trenchfoot]

Conservative restauranteurs are discovering that retaliation against the Affordable Care Act is bad for business.
Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter took to the Huffington Post to clarify his earlier suggestion that some restaurants might need to increase prices and cut employee hours in order to deal with the cost of Obamacare.
“Many in the media reported that I said Papa John’s is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare,” he wrote in a blog post. “I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act.”
Though the Affordable Care Act is still somewhat divisive, the trend in public polling is towards broad acceptance of the law. Last week, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that support for the health care law’s repeal had hit an all-time low of 33%.
Regardless of how many Americans felt about the law when it was first passed, making them pay extra in return seems to be a public relations loser.
Schnatter isn’t the only one feeling the heat. Just days after Denny’s franchise owner John Metz said he would add a 5% Obamacare surcharge to all his customers’ checks, Denny’s CEO John Miller publicly distanced himself from the decision. ”We recognize his right to speak on issues, but registered our disappointment that his comments have been interpreted as the company’s position,” he told the Huffington Post.
Given the public backlash against Metz, Miller has good reason to be disappointed. Denny’s franchise owner Abdo Mouannes told the Huffington Post that traffic at his seven Florida locations dropped “overnight” after Metz’s comments went viral. His restaurants received so many angry phone calls that one of his managers wanted to unplug the phone, Mouannes said to the Post.
“People didn’t like what they heard and were saying they wouldn’t support Denny’s,” Mouannes said. “But we have nothing to do with that decision. I am not a fan of that [5% surcharge] idea.”



So I guess Schnatter has learned a lesson that opening his pizza pie hole on a topic he had a knee jerk reaction to is really, really bad for business. Denny's had to find that out the hard way too. LOL

edit - sorry, forgot to post the link: http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/20/dennys-papa-johns-walk-back-criticism-of-obamacare/

 

[shira]

I didn't claim that anybody claimed it either.

There will be people evading the law or more accurately breaking it that have no law to break at this point. There is a lot of incentive to break this particular law as well. Since this is tied in with the IRS this will cause people to simply not file tax returns who otherwise would have.

Assuming that the 30+ million number of uninsured going to insured is accurate. How many of these people would have otherwise went into an emergency room and not paid their bills? Maybe 500,000 a year? These 30 million people are most likely low risk for huge medical bills yet we need Obamacare with it's added taxes on medical goods (making health care more expensive) and fines and "taxes" on those who opt out of getting health "insurance".

I'm sorry but just because you agree with the outcome congress now has another power that it didn't have before which could be used for something you don't agree with.

So yes I think creating criminals just to get insurance to people where the vast majority of these people don't need it is a bad outcome.

I find it very interesting that you focus on the unknown number of people that you speculate will find a way to avoid paying their "ACA penalty" and not on the millions of people who will definitely benefit. And you're phrasing "creating criminals" is pretty amusing. By your reasoning, creating ANY new law is bad because every new law will "create" people who will break that law.

The reason we need insurance to help us pay for health care is because of the insurance industry itself. When somebody else is paying the bill it is always going to (on average) create higher prices. We need less insurance, not more.

In countries with single-payer systems, "somebody else" is still paying the bill, but overall health care costs are only about half what they are in the U.S. By your reasoning, costs should still be sky high.

Yet even at "half price," the cost of routine but major medical procedures (cardiac bypass, hip replacement, etc) would easily bankrupt the average family. So either health insurance or a single-payer system is needed.

It seems like the system you advocate would have no big payer. Everyone would fend for themselves on medical costs, and the consequences of that are pretty clear. I guess you're an advocate of the "let them die" school of medicine for those who can't afford to pay.

 

[buckshot24]

I find it very interesting that you focus on the unknown number of people that you speculate will find a way to avoid paying their "ACA penalty" and not on the millions of people who will definitely benefit. And you're phrasing "creating criminals" is pretty amusing. By your reasoning, creating ANY new law is bad because every new law will "create" people who will break that law.

Doesn't it bother you just a little that by simply being alive we have to purchase something that we may or may not need or pay a stiff fine (tax)? What if it was something you disagreed with like owning a gun or a hybrid car or a Justin Bieber cd?

I don't think people benefit when their liberties are taken away from them even if it is for "their own good".

I think the problem is completely overblown where the vast majority of people without insurance won't welch on ER visits.

So yes when we enact laws that aren't really necessary creating criminals is a bad thing. On a related note I am for drug legalization along those same lines. We are creating criminals by pursuing a utopian ideal that nobody will get hooked on drugs if we just put drug dealers in prison.

In countries with single-payer systems, "somebody else" is still paying the bill, but overall health care costs are only about half what they are in the U.S. By your reasoning, costs should still be sky high.

Single payer is different. We don't have that and we won't have it any time soon. People who are in societies with single payer pay in other ways with longer waiting times, lower quality of care etc etc.

Yet even at "half price," the cost of routine but major medical procedures (cardiac bypass, hip replacement, etc) would easily bankrupt the average family. So either health insurance or a single-payer system is needed.

I'm in favor of health insurance be run as a true insurance plan where you aren't expected to use it on a regular basis. So if a person has this type of insurance and need a bypass this plan would cover that. What it won't cover is routine doctor visits and drugs.

It seems like the system you advocate would have no big payer. Everyone would fend for themselves on medical costs, and the consequences of that are pretty clear. I guess you're an advocate of the "let them die" school of medicine for those who can't afford to pay.

No I'm for market forces to be reintroduced into the medical industry as much as possible. People buy their own medicines, pay for their doctor visits and when they need major medical treatment their insurance plan can kick in to cover it. If they don't have insurance then they can either pay it slowly or go bankrupt.

Even now we don't have a "let them die" system. I'm definitely not for that. There are ways to help people that can't help themselves with medical treatment and costs.

 

[CaptnKirk]

They will just write it off, tax on proffits is after cost, wages, & expenses.
A million a week is still considered 'Small Business'

And then there are inconvencies . . .
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57549443-93/papa-johns-pizza-up-against-$250m-lawsuit-for-text-spam/#!